In 1791, the United States of America Second Amendment offers the people the right to bear arms. The point and purpose of the Second Amendment is the provision for militias; they were to the backing of the government for the maintenance of local public order. In the beginning of the Second Amendment the Framers of the Constitution understood militia as military: armies, and troops. Therefore the right of the U.S. citizens to bear and keep arms is built on and linked with the involvement in state militias. The reference to citizens keeping arms underscored the fact that in the 1700s, state governments could not be relied on to provide firearms to militia members, so citizens eligible serve in militias ( white males between the ages of
The 2nd amendment of the constitution maybe one of the most infamous and controversial modification of the charter. The 2nd amendment protects a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms the law states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, and shall not be infringed.” (“Second amendment” n.d.). The American Bar Association (“Bill of Rights” 1791) has stated that “there is more disagreement and less understanding about this right than of any other current issue regarding the Constitution. It is a confusing right and can be inferred in many ways and is interpreted accordingly with each case. The definition of the right to keep and bear arms is one of the most argued amendments in the constitution because some state the right refers to militia and their right of bearing arms to uphold and protect the security of a free nation when needed. While others believe the amendment gives each and every individual the right to keep and bear arms. However one construes the amendment, it has been a great topic of concern, argument and debate, ever since it has been ratified.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment has been understood amongst the American people, as simply “the right to bear arms”. The creation of the United States constitution was left in the hands of young men whom had served in the Continental Army prior to the draft of the historical document. Having witnessed the violence of the Revolution, these Federalists had the fear of suffering from a weak centralized government. “Anti-federalists”, members that opposed the Constitution, feared that this new government could build one centralized professional army, disarming the 13 state militias.
Ratified December 15, 1791, the bill of rights was added to the U.S. Constitution as a way to ensure the protection of every individual’s rights. The bill itself is a list of rights which limits the power of the federal government and gives power back to the people in the form of rights and liberties. Some of this rights include freedom of speech, religion, and press, but perhaps the one right that still to this day has many people questioning the meaning behind its wording is the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states that “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (Acosta, 2008). In short the amendment grants the right to bear arms,
The Second Amendment to the Constitution gave United States citizens the right to bear arms. Although, the Second Amendment stated: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. However, the framers could not foresee the type of violence we have in our cities today. Innocent citizens have and are being brutally killed due to this amendment. Stricter gun control laws must be enacted to receive these types of weapons.
The Second Amendment states that “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.1 It is important to understand that the Second Amendment was created in order to allow the American people to form militias in response to a tyrannical government attempting to suppress the American way of life. In order for Americans to form militias, they must uphold their freedom to bear arms as a
Now lets ask ourselves, what does the second amendment mean? Who gets to keep and bear arms? One side focuses on the phrase “A well-regulated militia” to argue that only people who are in a militia such as the National Guard have the right to bear arms. The other side focuses on the phrase “The right of the people” to argue that law-abiding citizens, whether or not they are in a militia have the right to bear arms. Who’s correct? For further insight, the wisdom and prudence of our founding fathers proves to be instructive, as they lived in this influential time. In the Federal Farmer number 28, Richard Henry Lee wrote, “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves.” In congruence with Richard’s thinking Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison saying, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve
The second amendment was passed by congress on september 25,1789. This amendment gave the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The Second Amendment guarantees American citizens the right to self-protection and safety. Society is safer when citizens carry guns because it gives citizens the ability to protect themselves from threats like criminals, such as violent intruders and attackers, as well as violent shooters.
“Americans are deeply divided over the Second Amendment. Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns. Others, that it does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias” (Cornell). The Second Amendment of the constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms, and is therefore one of the most important laws of the nation. This amendment holds an important value to our nation because, it prevents tyranny but, it also protects, spreads, and contributes to the causes of human rights. Over the past years there’s been controversy among the people and the true meaning of the Second Amendment. The understanding of the Second Amendment was to be a civic right in which who keep and bear arms will need to meet a legal obligation of participating in a well-regulated militia (Cornell 2). The definition for a well-regulated militia means to provide help in which involves carrying out the laws of the union, end rebellions against the government and protect against invasions. Thus, the Second Amendment shaped the country in which we live today. This country is bound on civil rights and individual freedom. In the book A Well Regulated Militia by Saul Cornell the debates in 1780-1850 took part into shaping what it will become the Second Amendment. This is because gun ownership will be seen as a civic obligation. Gun ownership is a civic obligation because it brings the need for protecting the nation. Shay’s rebellion was one of the
The second amendment of United States constitution said “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. This amendment was embraced on December 15, 1791, taking in consideration that American citizens have a natural right to self-defense and they can help to accomplish the following purposes:
According to The Second Amendment of the Constitution, the citizens of the United States have the right to own and bear arms, in order to form a well-regulated militia for the security of the states. This right has been discussed for decades as an important issue for the American society, and it has been one of the most controversial issues in the second half of the twentieth century until nowadays. This right germinated with the threat to freedom that the standing army of professional soldiers brought to the Americans. Some argued that the right to bear arms is mainly concerned with self-defense while others argued that this right was implemented to avoid militia disarmament and protect the Free State. This right was
The postmodern attitude greatly differs from the iconic and traditional values of the past. This change in attitude is a natural evolution caused by the a shift in worldviews. Thus, the values and belief systems of the 1970’s placed emphasis on optimism and censorship. Whereas, the postmodern mentality is characterized by pessimism and cynicism. This paradigm shift in values over time is directly a result of advancements in technology. Through the use of media such as television and social networks, the modern world has ushered in an era of free information exchange and high-speed communication. Progress, however, is a double-edged sword; on one hand, the globe has become well-connected, but on the other hand, anonymity allows negativity and hostility to run rampant. Therefore, increased exposure to technology in the postmodern world has lead to a society with a generally negative outlook on life. The difference between image #1 and image #2 visually represents the shift in attitude from positive to negative, from
In the wake of the collapse of the regime of the Colonels Konstantinos Karamanlis, who had fled Greece in 1963 following the electoral defeat of the National Radical Union and spent eleven years in self-imposed exile in Paris, was summoned back to the country and, on 24 July 1974, was sworn in as the first Prime Minister of the Third Hellenic Republic. For Karamanlis to set Greece on the road to democracy he first had to restore national unity, fractured as it had been by three decades of sociopolitical divisions between first-class citizens (ethnikofrones) and the so-called national miasmata. According to Peter Siani-Davies and Stefanos Katsikas ‘although he did not explicitly term it as such, his chosen vehicle for achieving this goal was
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The constitution is clearly saying all citizens have the right to be able to own and carry a weapon or firearm. On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves (Cornell 1). This is showing how our founding fathers supported the right to bear arms.
The second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of people to bear arms and was adopted in 1791. It guarantees all Americans "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is more described as supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Former Chief Justice of the United States, Warren E. Burger writes an essay regarding “The Right To Bear Arms,” that originally appeared in the Parade Magazine in the 1990’s that questions if “The Right To Bear Arms,” is an outdated idea. Burger argument is that the gun control would lower if handguns were lowered. He also talks about the”Militias,” which is an army that protects the security of the state. Our “State Militias,” in our time, serves as a huge national defense.
While China has been impacted with a one-child policy, this has not only caused dysfunction in the family, but also has created functional improvements as well; in terms of taking control over the country’s population crisis. In the 1970’s China upgraded women statuses by implementing a forcible policy for all women to obey, called the one-child policy which allows some women to give birth to only one child; and no more or strict consequences would be enforced and applied. This policy was designed to educate women, on the importance of a one-child family; in order to reduce the overwhelming population in China. By doing this China in turn would give the families money for adhering to the rules set forth, by abiding to their wishes and accepting a certification and cash rewards; just for maintaining stability on not placing a cash levy on the state for births. Women that became pregnant after the first child was conceived would soon be asked to part with the unborn, by that of terminating the birthing of that new addition (or child); if a one-child certificate was in the hand of the pregnant mother to be. "If she refuses she loses her bonus, will be left out of the next wage increase, and will suffer scorn by her co-workers" (Lindsey, 2011, pg. 147).